It seems that a lot of stock is put into the voting poll percentages. You know, the polls that are put out around the Internet, or that people walk around and ask people in neighborhoods and parking lots? What they ask is a little bit different depending on how the poll is done.

Usually with Internet polls you are asked a single question. Like with same-sex marriage (which is such a hot topic right now). They ask simply if you approve or disapprove, or if you don't know. Based on those answers, they decide that the general population, or the population of a town or state is either more in favor of something or more against something.

With people who actually do physical leg-work, such as walking around neighborhoods and knocking on doors to ask people some questions, or who stop people in parking lots to ask them questions there are usually a few different questions. One is usually whether or not you are a registered voter. Another is if you would like to see something on a ballot come the next elections. And finally the actual question, are you for or against that specific something or do you not really know how you feel about it?

By this, they decide how a specific population of people will vote and many people instantly speculate from it the outcome of such a subject at the polls.

But...I think it's pretty darn inaccurate. I mean, I can understand the purpose behind it in theory. Say that there are 51% of the population in one state that are pro-same-sex marriage. Providing that everybody who is pro-gay marriage votes at the election for pro-gay marriage laws, the laws should be passed.

The problem with that is that not everybody who answers polls, or even out of the ones that say on those polls that they intend to vote come next election OR only if that particular thing comes up for voting, actually goes and votes.

In theory, the polls work, and to get a general idea of where things stand in an area its a good idea! But, it also creates problems.

I've seen an awful lot of people that say that an outcome was rigged because a majority of the population in that state or in the nation was said to be in favor of the way "they" (the one complaining) wanted the outcome to be.

I can understand this, if you take the percentages from the polls at face value and think that every person who felt that way voted. But, they likely didn't. If the percentage of people who are in favor of something who actually CAST a vote is even just a little bit lower than those who oppose something who came out to cast their vote, then naturally the percentages that had everybody who was pro-that issue are not going to mean much.

Because the people who turned out to actually cast their vote in favor of that issue weren't all the people in that area who were in favor of it.

It also works in reverse, for people who oppose things and say that an election was rigged because the bills and laws they voted against got passed even though prior to the election said that the majority of people in the state were against those bills and laws. It doesn't always mean something was rigged. Just that the amount of people who should've turned out to vote...didn't.

Sometimes if something passes or doesn't pass, against prior poll percentages, it is nobody's fault by the people who did not cast their votes.

Also, not everybody in a state or town participates in polls like that. So, it's still not quite accurate anyway, because there might be more people against something or for something than are recorded in polls.

They are really only supposed to be used for a general "look" at how the population might swing with their votes. But it should never be something that people take to mean something definitely ought to swing "their" way.

I know a lot of people who like to hold up the polls that came out prior to an election as proof that something was rigged somehow, because it didn't turn out the way the polls said they would.

Does anybody else know anyone that does this?

I suppose I just never understood the point of being rude when replying to someone's blog post. And by this I mean someone you don't know well. Or even don't know at all!

While cruising around Xanga, just to check things out, I've noticed frequently that people on featured blogs like Mamaroo or other blogs tend to get pretty mean with their replies. I don't understand the point. If you don't like what you're reading, why bother continuing to read? Why not just go somewhere else? Why bother reading the rest of the post, then leaving an angry or self-righteously rude post for the OP or for the other repliers to read? What does it prove or accomplish?

It seems to me it just makes people angry. And it causes people to gang up on the angry replier. Which also is ridiculous.

And, if by chance someone really is trying to get a point across, I can't imagine how its a good idea to do it in such a rude way. Trying to give concrit (constructive criticism) by being rude or even mean, perhaps using profanity or just acting as if you are generally upset that someone has had the gall to make such a post on their journal or to submit it to a featured comm or blog, is a lot like trying to motivate someone to lose weight by calling them every "fat" name in the book.

It doesn't work. Your point gets lost in the angry feelings it generates, and then it becomes more or less just an argument among irritated repliers and the angry replier.

While it's nice to support the OP by trying to "help" or "make" a replier that you feel does not know what he/she is talking about or whom does not understand the situation or fully grasp the reasoning behind it, is a very nice gesture, it is actually just adding to the problem, too.

For one thing, it kind of hogs the blog. Especially if it's just arguing. And for another, it encourages others to get in on the fighting, and it detracts from the OP's message in the first place.

I'm advocate of the idea that if you don't like what you're reading, or if it makes you irritated, then just back out of the page and go somewhere else. Some people really do feel that they MUST say something, though. Whether its to be a shocking voice of reason, or whether it just be to show the OP how stupid you think he/she is or their post was.

That's fine, because everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But, again, what does it prove? I'm sorry to be repetitive, I just can't fathom it myself.

No one is being "shown" anything except for a bunch of repliers showing their ignorance over such things. In many instances, if you just leave an angry replier alone, they will fade away because they probably only went there for the purpose of replying one time. But if you reply, you're fueling the flame.

What does attacking each other prove? Nothing. It doesn't prove one is better than the other, no one is being "shown" anything (ie: I'll show them!), no one is proven to be smarter or stupider than the other. Instead, to me and probably to most other bloggers who choose not to get in the middle of the fray it might look a lot like those involved are all equally stupid.

Which is unfortunate. Especially since most of the angry repliers have the ability to speak very eloquently.

The point of the phrase, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is not to say that everybody should play nice because you might hurt other people's feelings. It's just saying that it's easier to get your own point across if you aren't making everybody around you defensive. If you are making people defensive, your point will be lost and nobody will want to accept it. Not the OP, and not the other repliers. And it creates a big mess.

I suppose you could say you don't care, but if you don't care why fire back to the repliers if it is so obviously futile? Why reply to the OP at all in the first place, then, if it is so unimportant?

I know it might be confusing to figure out exactly what my "beef" is. :p Am I upset with the angry people replying rudely to an OP, or am I upset with the people fueling the fire by replying to the angry replier?

Well, I'm not "upset" with either of them. But my post is about both of them. Why bother, if you are just going to start trouble?

Unless you are doing it on purpose so that you can argue with people. If you do it for that purpose, then if you were on some of my forums I'm part of, the name for you (and the "you" is collective, I'm not truly talking about any specific person or instance) would be a "troll" and that's unfortunate, too.

It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with anyone, anywhere if you are just starting and fueling angry fires. I think the best medicine for someone who starts an angry fire is simply to let the fire die out right away.